It's early, but anybody have a draft wish list yet?

[hrdboild]

You say he's not a terrible outside shooter, I just showed you last year he was arguably the worst shooter in the league from anywhere but under the rim.

Trying to paint a picture as if the only real problem Reke has is not having a 3point shot, and that he's done RESPECTABLE from anywhere else is just wrong.

I mean, I just showed you he didn't - so what are you talking about?

He's gotten gradually worst since he came into the league from almost every range

3-9 Feet
1st year : 33.3%
2nd year : 25.2%
3rd year : 26.6%

10-15 Feet
1st year : 43.2%
2nd year : 25.0%
3rd year : 23.5%

16-23 Feet
1st year : 32.0%
2nd year : 33.0%
3rd year : 30.0%

Threes
1st year : 25.5%
2nd year : 29.1%
3rd year : 20.2%

Please tell me where the 'respectable from eveywhere else' claim comes from, or how the only real problem he has is a 3p shot - cause the way I see it his troubles starts from 3 feet out.

I like how you try and spin it on me as if I come at you personally, when all I did was call you out on something wrong you said, nothing more nothing less.

I'm not painting a damn picture of anything. We all watch the games, so make up your own mind. I'm just stating an observation. There are plenty of examples of NBA players who can't make jumpshots to save their life and it's obvious just watching them shoot that they'll never get better. Tyreke was obviously an awful shooter this season, but I don't think that means he's going to continue to be awful. The reason I don't believe that is that he was not awful his rookie season, below-average perhaps but not awful. And there was an understanding at the time that he came into the league with an under-developed jumpshot and it was going to take some work. In addtion to that his form looks pretty good to me, aside from the fadeaway motion. He's improved on his release point since his rookie season, though it hasn't paid off yet statistically.

And actually, about that fadeaway motion, for a rhythm shooter I don't think he has to lose the fadeaway motion to be more consistent. I shoot a better percentage on my jump shots when I fade away. I can't exactly explain why -- just muscle memory I guess -- but from what I've seen I don't think it's that uncommon. For players that are scorers rather than pure shooters, it's more important to find a rhythm that works for you than it is to worry about having textbook form. Big-time NBA scorers like Lebron James and Paul Pierce, for example, fade away on long jumpers all the time and they find the bottom of the net pretty regularly.

You said he's gradually declined every year but I don't think the numbers show that. 43% to 25% to 23.5% on midrange jumpers in three years? That's not a gradual decline that's falling off a cliff. And it begs for a more comprehensive explanation than "dude can't shoot". I already gave you some possible explanations that make sense to me, but I'll add some more:

In his second season he seemed intent to take more 3 point shots but he missed an awful lot of them so the defense backed off and packed the lane. Those open midrange jumpers he was getting his rookie season turned into tightly contested pull-up shots in traffic which is a low-percentage shot for any player. To make matters worse, his lack of explosiveness on drives because of the foot and ankle problems made it difficult for him to get to the basket and finish like he did in his rookie season so he was throwing up junk all over the court instead. I think his shot selection that year was a much bigger problem than his shooting form. We all saw him throw layups wildly off the backboard because he didn't even have a clear view of the basket anymore, and that doesn't get any easier when you move another 5-10 feet further out.

This season, both Westphal and Smart took the ball out of his hands and made him spot up at the three point line, a shot that he has absolutely no confidence in making at this point in his career. He flat out stopped taking them by the second half of the season. But instead of throwing up junk like he did last year, he picked his spots better, and his overall FG% skyrocketed up to 50% the last two months of the season. Sure most of those attempts were at the rim, but he was still putting the ball in the basket. And if he keeps doing that then the mid range shots will open up for him again and he should at least be able to get back up to the low to mid 40s on his midrange percentage where he was at his rookie season.

That's what I saw anyway, but since you clearly don't think too highly of my opinion why do you think his shooting has gotten worse every year?

And yes you are being condescending when you throw up a few stats out of context and then act like the matter has been settled and there's no need for further discussion. I've been posting unpopular opinions since I joined this board so I'm used to catching a lot of flak. More often than not my observations have proven correct though so I'll continue making them. If all you care about is winning arguments, than fine. Build yourself a crown and wear it. Kingster asked a question and I gave my obervation. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, if all I have to say is something that is so obvious no one would disagree with it (ie Tyreke couldn't shoot straight this season) than I don't even bother posting at all. I didn't mind that you disagreed with me. The manner in which you did it read as disrespectful.

 

[bajaden]

I'm not painting a damn picture of anything. We all watch the games, so make up your own mind. I'm just stating an observation. There are plenty of examples of NBA players who can't make jumpshots to save their life and it's obvious just watching them shoot that they'll never get better. Tyreke was obviously an awful shooter this season, but I don't think that means he's going to continue to be awful. The reason I don't believe that is that he was not awful his rookie season, below-average perhaps but not awful. And there was an understanding at the time that he came into the league with an under-developed jumpshot and it was going to take some work. In addtion to that his form looks pretty good to me, aside from the fadeaway motion. He's improved on his release point since his rookie season, though it hasn't paid off yet statistically.

And actually, about that fadeaway motion, for a rhythm shooter I don't think he has to lose the fadeaway motion to be more consistent. I shoot a better percentage on my jump shots when I fade away. I can't exactly explain why -- just muscle memory I guess -- but from what I've seen I don't think it's that uncommon. For players that are scorers rather than pure shooters, it's more important to find a rhythm that works for you than it is to worry about having textbook form. Big-time NBA scorers like Lebron James and Paul Pierce, for example, fade away on long jumpers all the time and they find the bottom of the net pretty regularly.

You said he's gradually declined every year but I don't think the numbers show that. 43% to 25% to 23.5% on midrange jumpers in three years? That's not a gradual decline that's falling off a cliff. And it begs for a more comprehensive explanation than "dude can't shoot". I already gave you some possible explanations that make sense to me, but I'll add some more:

In his second season he seemed intent to take more 3 point shots but he missed an awful lot of them so the defense backed off and packed the lane. Those open midrange jumpers he was getting his rookie season turned into tightly contested pull-up shots in traffic which is a low-percentage shot for any player. To make matters worse, his lack of explosiveness on drives because of the foot and ankle problems made it difficult for him to get to the basket and finish like he did in his rookie season so he was throwing up junk all over the court instead. I think his shot selection that year was a much bigger problem than his shooting form. We all saw him throw layups wildly off the backboard because he didn't even have a clear view of the basket anymore, and that doesn't get any easier when you move another 5-10 feet further out.

This season, both Westphal and Smart took the ball out of his hands and made him spot up at the three point line, a shot that he has absolutely no confidence in making at this point in his career. He flat out stopped taking them by the second half of the season. But instead of throwing up junk like he did last year, he picked his spots better, and his overall FG% skyrocketed up to 50% the last two months of the season. Sure most of those attempts were at the rim, but he was still putting the ball in the basket. And if he keeps doing that then the mid range shots will open up for him again and he should at least be able to get back up to the low to mid 40s on his midrange percentage where he was at his rookie season.

That's what I saw anyway, but since you clearly don't think too highly of my opinion why do you think his shooting has gotten worse every year?

And yes you are being condescending when you throw up a few stats out of context and then act like the matter has been settled and there's no need for further discussion. I've been posting unpopular opinions since I joined this board so I'm used to catching a lot of flak. More often than not my observations have proven correct though so I'll continue making them. If all you care about is winning arguments, than fine. Build yourself a crown and wear it. Kingster asked a question and I gave my obervation. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, if all I have to say is something that is so obvious no one would disagree with it (ie Tyreke couldn't shoot straight this season) than I don't even bother posting at all. I didn't mind that you disagreed with me. The manner in which you did it read as disrespectful.

This is all I'll say on the matter. I respect both you guys, and think both of you are very knowledgable. I also think, the two of you are arguing over something, that in principle, you agree on. Tyreke, for whatever reason, didn't shoot well this past season from 10 feet out. Hard to agrue with that. He also hasn't gotten better in that area since his rookie year. Its hard to use his rookie year, which was average at best, as a benchmark, when he's gotten progressively worse in his next two years. That shows the one thing I don't want to see in a player whether in highschool, college, or the Pro's. Regression!

However, I'm talking about just one aspect of his game. He has made progress in many other areas, and thats not to be ignored. I do think saying that Smart stuck Tyreke out at the 3pt line and told him to chuck three's, is an exaggeration of the highest order. To be honest, I think Smart wanted to play a more uptempo game, but still have as many of his best players on the floor. So he stuck Tyreke at the SF position because he didn't want to take Thornton off the floor. And it worked to the degree that we did improve offensively. However, we suffered defensively.

 

[hrdboild]

I do think saying that Smart stuck Tyreke out at the 3pt line and told him to chuck three's, is an exaggeration of the highest order. To be honest, I think Smart wanted to play a more uptempo game, but still have as many of his best players on the floor. So he stuck Tyreke at the SF position because he didn't want to take Thornton off the floor. And it worked to the degree that we did improve offensively. However, we suffered defensively.

Well, I didn't say that he was asked to shoot threes-- I don't know what Westphal or Smart told Tyreke that his role was. They sent out a lot of mixed messages in their press conferences. But even if everyone in the arena knows Tyreke isn't going to shoot it from there, the fact remains that he's spotted up at the three point line as a part of the offense while someone else is handling the ball. In his entire career I haven't seen him hit spot-up shots consistently from anywhere on the floor so that was puzzling to me.

Back to the point of the original question though, I guess if you think Tyreke is basically already at the level he's going to be at as a shooter for the rest of his career, than drafting Kidd-Gilchrist could prove problematic. If you think he's likely to get better than it's still a concern, but less so. I'd be curious to see what would happen if we went all-in on defense and stacked the court with terrific defenders at every position like Detroit did a few years back, but my own preferences aside, it's probably best to fill your roster with a balance of offensive and defensive players. With that in mind, Barnes is a better fit for us offensively at SF and a capable defender, albeit with some limitations athletically.

 

[Boogie-havoc]

I'm not painting a damn picture of anything. We all watch the games, so make up your own mind. I'm just stating an observation. There are plenty of examples of NBA players who can't make jumpshots to save their life and it's obvious just watching them shoot that they'll never get better. Tyreke was obviously an awful shooter this season, but I don't think that means he's going to continue to be awful. The reason I don't believe that is that he was not awful his rookie season, below-average perhaps but not awful. And there was an understanding at the time that he came into the league with an under-developed jumpshot and it was going to take some work. In addtion to that his form looks pretty good to me, aside from the fadeaway motion. He's improved on his release point since his rookie season, though it hasn't paid off yet statistically.

And actually, about that fadeaway motion, for a rhythm shooter I don't think he has to lose the fadeaway motion to be more consistent. I shoot a better percentage on my jump shots when I fade away. I can't exactly explain why -- just muscle memory I guess -- but from what I've seen I don't think it's that uncommon. For players that are scorers rather than pure shooters, it's more important to find a rhythm that works for you than it is to worry about having textbook form. Big-time NBA scorers like Lebron James and Paul Pierce, for example, fade away on long jumpers all the time and they find the bottom of the net pretty regularly.

You said he's gradually declined every year but I don't think the numbers show that. 43% to 25% to 23.5% on midrange jumpers in three years? That's not a gradual decline that's falling off a cliff. And it begs for a more comprehensive explanation than "dude can't shoot". I already gave you some possible explanations that make sense to me, but I'll add some more:

In his second season he seemed intent to take more 3 point shots but he missed an awful lot of them so the defense backed off and packed the lane. Those open midrange jumpers he was getting his rookie season turned into tightly contested pull-up shots in traffic which is a low-percentage shot for any player. To make matters worse, his lack of explosiveness on drives because of the foot and ankle problems made it difficult for him to get to the basket and finish like he did in his rookie season so he was throwing up junk all over the court instead. I think his shot selection that year was a much bigger problem than his shooting form. We all saw him throw layups wildly off the backboard because he didn't even have a clear view of the basket anymore, and that doesn't get any easier when you move another 5-10 feet further out.

This season, both Westphal and Smart took the ball out of his hands and made him spot up at the three point line, a shot that he has absolutely no confidence in making at this point in his career. He flat out stopped taking them by the second half of the season. But instead of throwing up junk like he did last year, he picked his spots better, and his overall FG% skyrocketed up to 50% the last two months of the season. Sure most of those attempts were at the rim, but he was still putting the ball in the basket. And if he keeps doing that then the mid range shots will open up for him again and he should at least be able to get back up to the low to mid 40s on his midrange percentage where he was at his rookie season.

That's what I saw anyway, but since you clearly don't think too highly of my opinion why do you think his shooting has gotten worse every year?

And yes you are being condescending when you throw up a few stats out of context and then act like the matter has been settled and there's no need for further discussion. I've been posting unpopular opinions since I joined this board so I'm used to catching a lot of flak. More often than not my observations have proven correct though so I'll continue making them. If all you care about is winning arguments, than fine. Build yourself a crown and wear it. Kingster asked a question and I gave my obervation. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, if all I have to say is something that is so obvious no one would disagree with it (ie Tyreke couldn't shoot straight this season) than I don't even bother posting at all. I didn't mind that you disagreed with me. The manner in which you did it read as disrespectful.

Well first of all I didn't mean to offend you or anything, so i'm sorry if I did.

To the point - Again, I personally think that there's simply no way to say about Tyreke that he's been respectablefrom anywhere other then the 3point line, or that he's not a terrible shooter.

The numbers speak louder then anything there, and dispute those claims without a doubt in my opinion.

Maybe he'll get better - who knows, I sure as hell hope so - but to say he's done respectable, or to refute simple numbers and facts of what he's been is what I don't understand here, and I think saying that his numbers for 3 years in the league from every range other then the rim is wrong aswell.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the matter, cause while Tyreke might and hopefully will improve - he's still been and currently is a terrible shooter from anywhere other then the rim.

I think it got worst cause Tyreke didn't really work as hard as he needs to be - or more realistically he didn't work in the right way as he should over the summer, and chose to continue shooting with his bad form and had his older brothers guide him and tell him it's ok to keep shooting with all his bad habits cause "thats how he did it in highschool and back then his jumper was wet".

Hopefully once he gets to a real shooting coach and puts some real work in - we could see some actual progress happening, but until proven otherwise he'd still be a horrible shooter in my book from just about anywhere on the court, as his numbers show.

 

[bajaden]

Well, I didn't say that he was asked to shoot threes-- I don't know what Westphal or Smart told Tyreke that his role was. They sent out a lot of mixed messages in their press conferences. But even if everyone in the arena knows Tyreke isn't going to shoot it from there, the fact remains that he's spotted up at the three point line as a part of the offense while someone else is handling the ball. In his entire career I haven't seen him hit spot-up shots consistently from anywhere on the floor so that was puzzling to me.

Back to the point of the original question though, I guess if you think Tyreke is basically already at the level he's going to be at as a shooter for the rest of his career, than drafting Kidd-Gilchrist could prove problematic. If you think he's likely to get better than it's still a concern, but less so. I'd be curious to see what would happen if we went all-in on defense and stacked the court with terrific defenders at every position like Detroit did a few years back, but my own preferences aside, it's probably best to fill your roster with a balance of offensive and defensive players. With that in mind, Barnes is a better fit for us offensively at SF and a capable defender, albeit with some limitations athletically.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Writing what you think can sometimes leave something to be desired. Hard to get inflection into a written sentence. However, where Tyreke is concerned, I think he'll definitely improve his outside shot. Just a matter of doing the work. Now if he had the feel on the ball that Michael Smith used to have, then I'd say no, we have to live with what you see. But Tyreke has good touch on the ball, its just his technique thats hurting him. And yes, as you posted earlier, there are players that fade away and still shoot the ball well, just as there are hitters in baseball with hitches in their swing that still hit well. But its not a recipe for everyone, and apparently not for Tyeke. I'm a believer in, if its not broke, don't fix it. In Tyreke's case, its broke. And when its broke, you correct everything thats obvious. But the point is, its correctable, and I believe he'll get it done.

As for the draft, if Gilchrist is there when we pick, you take him. He's another player that will improve his shot, but at the moment he does too many things so much better than anyone else in this draft, you just don't pass on him. One way to put it is, if Gilchrist was guarding Barnes, Barnes would struggle with his scoring. However I doubt Barnes would have much of an effect on Gilchrist. Plus, if its an uptempo game that you want to play, Gilchrist is tailor made for that type of game.

 

[Boogie-havoc]

Plus, if its an uptempo game that you want to play, Gilchrist is tailor made for that type of game.

That's what gets me so excited about having MKG next year.

He would be an absolute terror on the fast breaks with our style of play.

 

[Rookie]

We already got a 6'6 SF that is similar to Gilchrist, why not go for someone that can shoot and is a little taller in Barnes? Wouldn't a pair of Barnes+T-Will be better at SF than Gilchrist+T-Will who have similar game?

Just wondering because I'm starting to jump on board with Brick's team build...go BIG.

Imagine Evans driving with thornton+Barnes on the outside. Any defender leaving those two open will pay and if they don't triple defend Evans..Evans will make them pay. Barnes could really help developed Evans game with another reliable perimeter while Gilchrist could potentially be another Evans. Why look for another one when we already got one?

I don't watch college game so I'm ignorant in that regard so forgive me if I'm way off. This is just speculating from reading others evaluation of the two players.

 

[hrdboild]

Well first of all I didn't mean to offend you or anything, so i'm sorry if I did.

To the point - Again, I personally think that there's simply no way to say about Tyreke that he's been respectablefrom anywhere other then the 3point line, or that he's not a terrible shooter.

The numbers speak louder then anything there, and dispute those claims without a doubt in my opinion.

Maybe he'll get better - who knows, I sure as hell hope so - but to say he's done respectable, or to refute simple numbers and facts of what he's been is what I don't understand here, and I think saying that his numbers for 3 years in the league from every range other then the rim is wrong aswell.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the matter, cause while Tyreke might and hopefully will improve - he's still been and currently is a terrible shooter from anywhere other then the rim.

I think it got worst cause Tyreke didn't really work as hard as he needs to be - or more realistically he didn't work in the right way as he should over the summer, and chose to continue shooting with his bad form and had his older brothers guide him and tell him it's ok to keep shooting with all his bad habits cause "thats how he did it in highschool and back then his jumper was wet".

Hopefully once he gets to a real shooting coach and puts some real work in - we could see some actual progress happening, but until proven otherwise he'd still be a horrible shooter in my book from just about anywhere on the court, as his numbers show.

What Bajaden said about inflection goes both ways. Probably I read something that wasn’t there. I’m also pretty bad at times about reasoning out conclusions and then forgetting to tell people how I got to them, so I open myself up to criticism for that.

It’s mainly a semantic disagreement at this point. “Terrible” to me means a guy has no hope of getting better. I used the word “respectable” because, while his shooting percentages the last two years have been an embarrassment, you can see that he is working on his shooting form and his shot selection and I’ve seen progress in both areas even if it hasn’t paid off yet statistically. I chalk that up to growing pains and anticipate that the improvement is coming. Even those numbers are respectable I think in context of a young player trying to work things out on the fly.

You could certainly make a case (as you have) that the statistical trend is alarming. I’m less willing to agree only because I don’t think there’s been enough time to draw a statistical conclusion—particularly when you factor in injuries, coaching changes, and condensed schedules. I hesitate to give an ultimatum, but I think we’ll know within 3 years basically who Tyreke is going to be as a player. Until then I try to withhold judgment.

Remember that not long ago the stats also said he had one of the best rookie seasons of all time and was destined for the Hall-of-Fame. I would have said then that Tyreke was a bad shooter who needs to get better, but there’s a long history of bad shooters working hard and getting better in the NBA--particularly players with an elite pedigree who have obviously spent long hours working on their game already to get where they are. After his second season I would have said that he needs to get healthy first and foremost, and then he needs to watch a lot of tape to figure out why he’s making the same mistakes over and over again and what he needs to do to adjust. At this point I think he just needs to put in a lot more work but he’s on the right track. Yeah I know that’s not what the numbers say, but that’s my belief anyway based on what I’ve seen.

Then again, I wouldn’t say any of this to Tyreke. I would tell him he’s the worst shooter I’ve ever seen and if he ever wants to get better at it he’s got to be in the gym putting up shots for 8 hours a day. I pre-suppose a certain degree of work-ethic in anyone who rises to the top of their field, but that’s easy for me to say. He still has to earn it like everyone else.

 

[hrdboild]

We already got a 6'6 SF that is similar to Gilchrist, why not go for someone that can shoot and is a little taller in Barnes? Wouldn't a pair of Barnes+T-Will be better at SF than Gilchrist+T-Will who have similar game?

Just wondering because I'm starting to jump on board with Brick's team build...go BIG.

Imagine Evans driving with thornton+Barnes on the outside. Any defender leaving those two open will pay and if they don't triple defend Evans..Evans will make them pay. Barnes could really help developed Evans game with another reliable perimeter while Gilchrist could potentially be another Evans. Why look for another one when we already got one?

I don't watch college game so I'm ignorant in that regard so forgive me if I'm way off. This is just speculating from reading others evaluation of the two players.

It's a fair question I think. That's why I said before that Barnes is a better fit on paper. And I'm a bigger fan of Barnes than most so I would be happy if that's who we end up with. The reason everyone rates Gilchrist so highly though isn't only because he's a very good defender who can also handle the ball and score. He's just one of those players who has a knack for making smart plays. It's hard to explain what exactly he's doing that makes him so good, he's just a guy who gets it. He understands the game and he's willing to work harder than everyone else on the court to get what he wants. If you watch a lot of basketball at any level -- high school, college, pros -- players like that are rare. To do it as a freshman, doubly so. (And the same could be said for Anthony Davis by the way)

 

[VF21]

It's a fair question I think. That's why I said before that Barnes is a better fit on paper. And I'm a bigger fan of Barnes than most so I would be happy if that's who we end up with. The reason everyone rates Gilchrist so highly though isn't only because he's a very good defender who can also handle the ball and score. He's just one of those players who has a knack for making smart plays. It's hard to explain what exactly he's doing that makes him so good, he's just a guy who gets it. He understands the game and he's willing to work harder than everyone else on the court to get what he wants. If you watch a lot of basketball at any level -- high school, college, pros -- players like that are rare. To do it as a freshman, doubly so. (And the same could be said for Anthony Davis by the way)

I've been saying for quite a while that I liked Gilchrist but couldn't quite put into words exactly why. Thanks for solving my problem.

 

[hrdboild]

I've been saying for quite a while that I liked Gilchrist but couldn't quite put into words exactly why. Thanks for solving my problem.

You're welcome! Now we just need the lotto gods to solve both of our problem and grant us a top three pick to get him on our team!

 

[KingsCitizen]

IMO Barnes is a safe pick if MKG is taken. Barnes + Fredette on court would easily open up the lane for DMC and Reke to operate down low.

 

[Rookie]

I still don't see the benefit of Gilchrist playing with our current team. He potentially could be a star if he can shoot...but what about Evans? Are we going to wait on both players to developed? What's the plan if you draft Gilchrist?

I guess I'm not in the mood to continue building on potential. It is time for us to start putting a team together that fit and not continue building on potential star...unless we've given up on Evans. So in that regard we got our future stars (Cuz+Evans), do we really need to add more and continue building on potential?

Maybe I'm alone but I said get pieces that fit our current potential stars (more than likely Cuz could be a star next season with Evans as a high probabily due to his contract year) and start chasing the playoff next season. If we can't get that done, I can see Evans walking out.

 

[The_Jamal]

I still don't see the benefit of Gilchrist playing with our current team. He potentially could be a star if he can shoot...but what about Evans? Are we going to wait on both players to developed? What's the plan if you draft Gilchrist?

I guess I'm not in the mood to continue building on potential. It is time for us to start putting a team together that fit and not continue building on potential star...unless we've given up on Evans. So in that regard we got our future stars (Cuz+Evans), do we really need to add more and continue building on potential?

Maybe I'm alone but I said get pieces that fit our current potential stars (more than likely Cuz could be a star next season with Evans as a high probabily due to his contract year) and start chasing the playoff next season. If we can't get that done, I can see Evans walking out.

You draft MKG because of his defense/heart/hustle and hope he taps into his offensive potential. To me, MKG will one of the safest picks in the last few years as far as getting a productive NBA player; his athleticism plus the energy and hustle he brings on the defensive end will at least guarantee him to be a strong rotational player on any team. You just don't see college standouts who put the effort in that he does on other aspects of basketball besides scoring. Literally, the only weakness in his game is that he can't hit outside shots. He's a fantastic passer, ball-handler, can get to the rim, rebounds extraordinarily well for a SF, will defend the other team's best player, is a team-first basketball player, and plays with a real sense of drive and determination. I would take a serious look at MKG for our pick, even if we had a shot at Davis.

The good (or bad depending on what you think our needs are) is that we might have a shot at MKG if we snag the 3rd or 4th pick. This draft is filled with workout warrior type players, especially bigs who teams might end up taking earlier than expected. Davis, Drummond, Robinson, Perry Jones, and possibly Sullinger are all guys who could see their stock rise as bad teams tend to take bigs earlier than they should

 

[The_Jamal]

We already got a 6'6 SF that is similar to Gilchrist, why not go for someone that can shoot and is a little taller in Barnes? Wouldn't a pair of Barnes+T-Will be better at SF than Gilchrist+T-Will who have similar game?

Just wondering because I'm starting to jump on board with Brick's team build...go BIG.

Imagine Evans driving with thornton+Barnes on the outside. Any defender leaving those two open will pay and if they don't triple defend Evans..Evans will make them pay. Barnes could really help developed Evans game with another reliable perimeter while Gilchrist could potentially be another Evans. Why look for another one when we already got one?

I don't watch college game so I'm ignorant in that regard so forgive me if I'm way off. This is just speculating from reading others evaluation of the two players.

As been stated numerous times before, we need defensive oriented players who don't need shots to make a significant impact. Luckily for us (if we get a top 3 pick) we'll have a shot at 2 guys who do exactly that. MKG would immediately be the best defender on the team, and would shore up a lot of of perimeter defensive problems. He understands team defense and would help our defensive rotations become much, much better. Think prime Ak47 as a player comparison he can attain. What makes him so appealing though is his intangibles. I can't remember a college star in recent years of his magnitude who was so willing to sacrifice his stats for the good of the team. He's absolutely all about hustle, energy, and hard-work and wants to be the best defender on the court. Considering his passing and rebounding ability as well, I could see him putting up poor man's LeBron numbers at his peak. I'm just imagining what we could do with a Reke-MKG-Cousins trio and if we could develop the outside game of Reke and MKG. Add in a few solid role players here and there and you got yourself a championship contending team

 

[Rookie]

My question isn't about his greatness...but about the fit of this team. Sound like his skill is similar but could be better than Evans.

I can see the opponents defend closer to the rim and create traffic for Cuz as well as MKG and Evans. With only one perimeter threat in Thornton or IT, I don't see it will be the best of option. Just speculating.

With Evans contract next year coming into play, if MKG start requiring the ball in his hand to be effective (similar to Evans) would that affect Evans game? Would we continue to push for Evans as 2nd option or now we moving on without him? Basically what would MKG means for Evans game and future? Anyone care to elaborate?

 

[Rookie]

As been stated numerous times before, we need defensive oriented players who don't need shots to make a significant impact. Luckily for us (if we get a top 3 pick) we'll have a shot at 2 guys who do exactly that. MKG would immediately be the best defender on the team, and would shore up a lot of of perimeter defensive problems. He understands team defense and would help our defensive rotations become much, much better. Think prime Ak47 as a player comparison he can attain. What makes him so appealing though is his intangibles. I can't remember a college star in recent years of his magnitude who was so willing to sacrifice his stats for the good of the team. He's absolutely all about hustle, energy, and hard-work and wants to be the best defender on the court. Considering his passing and rebounding ability as well, I could see him putting up poor man's LeBron numbers at his peak. I'm just imagining what we could do with a Reke-MKG-Cousins trio and if we could develop the outside game of Reke and MKG. Add in a few solid role players here and there and you got yourself a championship contending team

So basically he will be use more as a defender than offense (3rd or 4th option?). Maybe it will work. Oh well...let's go with the flow. MKG it is .

Hope he can grow an inch or two to better fit at SF in the NBA.

 

[The_Jamal]

My question isn't about his greatness...but about the fit of this team. Sound like his skill is similar but could be better than Evans.

I can see the opponents defend closer to the rim and create traffic for Cuz as well as MKG and Evans. With only one perimeter threat in Thornton or IT, I don't see it will be the best of option. Just speculating.

With Evans contract next year coming into play, if MKG start requiring the ball in his hand to be effective (similar to Evans) would that affect Evans game? Would we continue to push for Evans as 2nd option or now we moving on without him? Basically what would MKG means for Evans game and future? Anyone care to elaborate?

The beauty of MKG is that he wants to be better at everything else besides scoring. He actually wants to rebound, defend the other team's best player, and essentially do whatever the team needs him to do to win. I doubt he'll ever score more than 15-17 points at his peak, but you can be damn sure he'll grab 7 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals, 1 block while locking down the other team's best perimeter player. He's the ultimate glue-guy role player with a chance to be a major star in this league. Think Luol Deng, Gerald Wallace, Andre Iggy, Prime Ak47

 

[bajaden]

I still don't see the benefit of Gilchrist playing with our current team. He potentially could be a star if he can shoot...but what about Evans? Are we going to wait on both players to developed? What's the plan if you draft Gilchrist?

I guess I'm not in the mood to continue building on potential. It is time for us to start putting a team together that fit and not continue building on potential star...unless we've given up on Evans. So in that regard we got our future stars (Cuz+Evans), do we really need to add more and continue building on potential?

Maybe I'm alone but I said get pieces that fit our current potential stars (more than likely Cuz could be a star next season with Evans as a high probabily due to his contract year) and start chasing the playoff next season. If we can't get that done, I can see Evans walking out.

For prespective, Michael Jordan couldn't shoot from the outside when he came into the NBA either. Neither could Dwayne Wade, and Wade still seldom takes 3 pt shots. Magic Johnson was a terrible outside shooter coming out of college. I have to assume that you wouldn't mind any of those players on your team. There are players that are just special, and have won at every level. They refuse to lose, and won't tolerate any of their teammates taking a play off, or not running the floor. Gilchrist is one of those guys. He's a born leader. And to clarify a little. Its true that Gilchrist's outside shot need work. But he has a good midrange shot which is very consistent. If you need him to score, he can score!

Now if all you want from your SF is someone that can spot up and hit a three, and play decent defense, then Barnes is your guy. But at present, he can't put the ball on the floor for more than a couple of dribbles. So he's not going to attack the basket. He did improve coming off screens, but still has a long way to go in that area. In short, if Barnes has to put the ball on the floor, he becomes a lot less consistent, and I don't see that getting any better in the short term at the NBA level. Maybe down the road.

Gilchrist on the other hand, is very good at attacking the basket, and in the open court, he was one of the best in college last season. He's a very good and relentless rebounder for a guy 6'7.5". I point that out just to make you aware that he's not 6'6". He was without a doubt the best defensive SF in college last season, and was second to only one player as the best all around defensive player, and that was his teammate, Davis. Gilchrist defended on occasion, four positions from PG to PF, and many times within the same game. It wasn't uncommon for him to guard the other teams PG. He was the engine that made the team run. And if he was on the floor, you damm well better be running with him

 

[Rookie]

nbadraft.net listed him at 6'6 on their mock draft. I'm glad to see that he had grown some after I requested it. .

You guys got me sold . The question is with that type of player, what would our chance be in drafting him?

 

[Boogie-havoc]

8.5%.

 

[The_Jamal]

nbadraft.net listed him at 6'6 on their mock draft. I'm glad to see that he had grown some after I requested it. .

You guys got me sold . The question is with that type of player, what would our chance be in drafting him?

It all depends. With so many strong bigs in this draft, teams might pass on MKG for hitting a home-run on a big. Davis, Drummond, Thomas Robinson, Sullinger, Perry Jones are all guys I could see potentially leap-frogging MKG on the draft board. My guess is that he'll be either the 3rd or 4th pick in the draft

 

[Kingster]

It's a fair question I think. That's why I said before that Barnes is a better fit on paper. And I'm a bigger fan of Barnes than most so I would be happy if that's who we end up with. The reason everyone rates Gilchrist so highly though isn't only because he's a very good defender who can also handle the ball and score. He's just one of those players who has a knack for making smart plays. It's hard to explain what exactly he's doing that makes him so good, he's just a guy who gets it. He understands the game and he's willing to work harder than everyone else on the court to get what he wants. If you watch a lot of basketball at any level -- high school, college, pros -- players like that are rare. To do it as a freshman, doubly so. (And the same could be said for Anthony Davis by the way)

That speaks of extraordinary BBIQ. Personally, I weigh BB IQ heavily when looking at players, and this team needs all the BB IQ it can get. I didn't see much of MKG, but I like the sound of what I'm hearing about him.

As an aside, Robinson wouldn't be bad either. We have nobody on this team that can sky for the ball like Robinson. I can see him helping the entire offense (and eventually defense) by his ability to go and get the ball in the air. I could see IT throwing a lot of lob slam dunks to Robinson.

 

[Kingster]

My question isn't about his greatness...but about the fit of this team. Sound like his skill is similar but could be better than Evans.

I can see the opponents defend closer to the rim and create traffic for Cuz as well as MKG and Evans. With only one perimeter threat in Thornton or IT, I don't see it will be the best of option. Just speculating.

With Evans contract next year coming into play, if MKG start requiring the ball in his hand to be effective (similar to Evans) would that affect Evans game? Would we continue to push for Evans as 2nd option or now we moving on without him? Basically what would MKG means for Evans game and future? Anyone care to elaborate?

I have the same concerns. I don't think you could play Evans and MKG together. UNLESS Evans really vaults up in his shooting over the summer. Petrie has said he will be looking for 3 point shooting. MKG doesn't fit that bill. Would Petrie pass on MKG because he doesn't fit the need? I don't know. So, you have the unknown to deal with in Tyreke's shooting. You also have the unknown of whether the Kings are serious about trading him. And finally, the unknown of who exactly they trade him for if they do trade him. Still, if you think MKG is legit and that there is no equivalent player in this year's draft, you've got to go for him if available. Then you can make your trades accordingly.

 

[bajaden]

nbadraft.net listed him at 6'6 on their mock draft. I'm glad to see that he had grown some after I requested it. .

You guys got me sold . The question is with that type of player, what would our chance be in drafting him?

The measurement I gave you was from the skills academy, and its been very accurate in the past. So until proved wrong, I'm going with that measurement. Aside from the 6'7.5", the more important measurement is his 6'10" wingspan, and whatever his standing reach is. Unfortunately we don't have his standing reach. Its very possible for a 6'7" player to have a higher standing reach than a 6'9" player. It happens all the time. I won't go into how, since I'm sure you can figure it out. For instance, Cousins has a higher standing reach than many of the taller players he plays against. And as Jerry Reynolds said, you don't rebound with the top of your head.

Another prespective is, why is Gilchrist rated so much higher than Taylor or Ross, when both these guys are better outside shooters, and both are good athletic defenders. Both are also 6'7". One reason perhaps, other than Taylor being much older than MKG, is that both these guys have average wingspans at 6'6" and 6'7" respectively. So effectively, MKG plays bigger than his 6'7.5".

 

[bajaden]

I have the same concerns. I don't think you could play Evans and MKG together. UNLESS Evans really vaults up in his shooting over the summer. Petrie has said he will be looking for 3 point shooting. MKG doesn't fit that bill. Would Petrie pass on MKG because he doesn't fit the need? I don't know. So, you have the unknown to deal with in Tyreke's shooting. You also have the unknown of whether the Kings are serious about trading him. And finally, the unknown of who exactly they trade him for if they do trade him. Still, if you think MKG is legit and that there is no equivalent player in this year's draft, you've got to go for him if available. Then you can make your trades accordingly.

I think when it comes to the draft, you choose the BPA, and worry about the fit later. At worse, you have a player that most of the league would love to have, so he has value if the fit is wrong. Its much better to do that, than choose a player just for need or fit, and end up with an average rotation guy that'll give you 15 minutes off the bench, but won't net you much in a trade.

Freeagency is different, and thats where you should be trying to bring more balance, and improvement to your team. When you draft a young player like a Gilchrist or a Robinson, some of your bet is on what they've done up to now, but most of it is on what you think they can become in the future. So if you were to reject a player like Gilchrist, based on his current ability to shoot the ball, then your saying he has no chance to improve in the future, because thats where his true value lies. Bear in mind, that the college season is over, and when the final choice is made at the draft in late june, Gilchrist will still be only 18 yrs' old. Personally, I'm willing to place a pretty big bet on that future.

Note: I keep forgetting to post this. Most people know that Michael Gilchrist changed his name to Michael Kidd Gilchrist, but I doubt many know why. In fact, he did it to honor his uncle, Darrin Kidd, who died the same day that Gilchrist signed his letter of intent to Kentucky.

 

[Uncia03]

For prespective, Michael Jordan couldn't shoot from the outside when he came into the NBA either. Neither could Dwayne Wade, and Wade still seldom takes 3 pt shots. Magic Johnson was a terrible outside shooter coming out of college. I have to assume that you wouldn't mind any of those players on your team. There are players that are just special, and have won at every level. They refuse to lose, and won't tolerate any of their teammates taking a play off, or not running the floor. Gilchrist is one of those guys. He's a born leader. And to clarify a little. Its true that Gilchrist's outside shot need work. But he has a good midrange shot which is very consistent. If you need him to score, he can score!

Now if all you want from your SF is someone that can spot up and hit a three, and play decent defense, then Barnes is your guy. But at present, he can't put the ball on the floor for more than a couple of dribbles. So he's not going to attack the basket. He did improve coming off screens, but still has a long way to go in that area. In short, if Barnes has to put the ball on the floor, he becomes a lot less consistent, and I don't see that getting any better in the short term at the NBA level. Maybe down the road.

Gilchrist on the other hand, is very good at attacking the basket, and in the open court, he was one of the best in college last season. He's a very good and relentless rebounder for a guy 6'7.5". I point that out just to make you aware that he's not 6'6". He was without a doubt the best defensive SF in college last season, and was second to only one player as the best all around defensive player, and that was his teammate, Davis. Gilchrist defended on occasion, four positions from PG to PF, and many times within the same game. It wasn't uncommon for him to guard the other teams PG. He was the engine that made the team run. And if he was on the floor, you damm well better be running with him

I think it's the intangibles (leadership, hustle, drive, grit, refusal to lose) as well as the elite defense which really separates MKG from Barnes.

I watched Barnes his freshman season and he was just awful the first half, but really put things together the 2nd half. So much so that I had Barnes as the 3rd pick I would take for the Kings in the last draft.
Even though MKG doesn't have the outside shot like Barnes, he's just on another level in so many other ways that you'd be foolish to pass on him in favor of Barnes.

With-out a doubt MKG was an all-defensive wing player. The three best perimeter defenders in college last season were MKG, Jeffrey Taylor, and Aaron Craft. I would be happy with any of those three players on the Kings at some point in the future.

I also want to mention that MKG does not need the ball in his hands to be effective, which is another reason why he'd be such a good fit. Almost all of his points came from one of three areas:
1.) Fastbreak points (He excels in finishing on the fast-break)
2.) Offensive Rebound put-backs. (Great rebounder for his position and is just gritty and likes to battle for the boards)
3.) Cuts to the basket

Now the question is: Can he create his own shot?

The answer is: Yet to be determined.

Calipari did not utilize him as a player trying to create his own shot, so you saw very few opportunities where he tried. He's got handles on the fast-break, but that is different from trying to take your man in the half-court. I don't know if he can create his own shot, but I do know that he'd fit in great as a 3rd/4th option, and his attitude is such that he'd be perfectly fine being at the lower end of the depth chart when it comes to taking shots. All he cares about is winning.

One thing I want to mention about Barnes. For some reason I think people are under-estimating his athleticism. He's a good athlete with good size and length. He just doesn't seem to have quite the lateral quickness as MKG and he struggled taking his man off the dribble. I would currently take him 4th if Davis, MKG, Robinson are off the board, because I see him as a Luol Deng sort of player, who can be a very productive SF on a good team.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Why do we have to wait until the end of the month for the lottery? This is so stupid.

 

[Kingster]

The measurement I gave you was from the skills academy, and its been very accurate in the past. So until proved wrong, I'm going with that measurement. Aside from the 6'7.5", the more important measurement is his 6'10" wingspan, and whatever his standing reach is. Unfortunately we don't have his standing reach. Its very possible for a 6'7" player to have a higher standing reach than a 6'9" player. It happens all the time. I won't go into how, since I'm sure you can figure it out. For instance, Cousins has a higher standing reach than many of the taller players he plays against. And as Jerry Reynolds said, you don't rebound with the top of your head.

Another prespective is, why is Gilchrist rated so much higher than Taylor or Ross, when both these guys are better outside shooters, and both are good athletic defenders. Both are also 6'7". One reason perhaps, other than Taylor being much older than MKG, is that both these guys have average wingspans at 6'6" and 6'7" respectively. So effectively, MKG plays bigger than his 6'7.5".

I think the "playing bigger" is the key. A guy can have arms reaching to the ground but may play a lot shorter than the competition. Corliss had a very long reach. Didn't help him much on the defensive end or with rebounding. I remember the Kings management made a big deal about it, though. When we talk about playing bigger, we talk about a guy able to get the loose balls, get the rebounds, get into player's face on D, and getting his shot on offense. To my mind, the reach is just one element of several other elements - jumping height, jumping quickness, quickness, anticipation, seeing the floor, reaction time - that allows a player to do those things. That "reach measurement" is way down on my list.

 

[Kingster]

I think it's the intangibles (leadership, hustle, drive, grit, refusal to lose) as well as the elite defense which really separates MKG from Barnes.

I watched Barnes his freshman season and he was just awful the first half, but really put things together the 2nd half. So much so that I had Barnes as the 3rd pick I would take for the Kings in the last draft.
Even though MKG doesn't have the outside shot like Barnes, he's just on another level in so many other ways that you'd be foolish to pass on him in favor of Barnes.

With-out a doubt MKG was an all-defensive wing player. The three best perimeter defenders in college last season were MKG, Jeffrey Taylor, and Aaron Craft. I would be happy with any of those three players on the Kings at some point in the future.

I also want to mention that MKG does not need the ball in his hands to be effective, which is another reason why he'd be such a good fit. Almost all of his points came from one of three areas:
1.) Fastbreak points (He excels in finishing on the fast-break)
2.) Offensive Rebound put-backs. (Great rebounder for his position and is just gritty and likes to battle for the boards)
3.) Cuts to the basket

Now the question is: Can he create his own shot?

The answer is: Yet to be determined.

Calipari did not utilize him as a player trying to create his own shot, so you saw very few opportunities where he tried. He's got handles on the fast-break, but that is different from trying to take your man in the half-court. I don't know if he can create his own shot, but I do know that he'd fit in great as a 3rd/4th option, and his attitude is such that he'd be perfectly fine being at the lower end of the depth chart when it comes to taking shots. All he cares about is winning.

One thing I want to mention about Barnes. For some reason I think people are under-estimating his athleticism. He's a good athlete with good size and length. He just doesn't seem to have quite the lateral quickness as MKG and he struggled taking his man off the dribble. I would currently take him 4th if Davis, MKG, Robinson are off the board, because I see him as a Luol Deng sort of player, who can be a very productive SF on a good team.

That's what I don't like about Barnes. He didn't have the quickness in college, much less the pros, to break down his man off the dribble. That's why I'd be very dissapointed if we were in the top 5 and took him. He'll make his money running off picks and setting up at the 3 pt line in the pros, but that doesn't warrant that high of a pick.